nisidhe
Hank Scorpio
O Superman....O judge....O Mom and Dad....
Posts: 5,716 
|
Post by nisidhe on Jul 2, 2017 18:44:41 GMT -5
Just finished listening to this clip:
and found myself nodding like a moron to just about everything Bryan Alvarez had to say about why WWE's numbers are going down. It has occurred to me that WWE has a conflict of alignments. On the one hand, WWE relies on its babyfaces (largely) to move merchandise. On the other hand, how are those babyfaces being treated by the Creative team?
Historically, WWWF/WWF (prior to, say, 1998) relied on a main-event model in which long-term champions were babyfaces while heels were either chasers or transitional champions. The NWA, on the other hand, relied on heel champions being chased by multiple babyface challengers. The face-champion model, in many respects, makes more business sense for WWE overall and has been reliable in its expansion throughout the 1980s; not only did it move more merchandise, a long-term champion allowed more creative energy for building the undercard up as well, so you could turn your focus onto Savage-Steamboat or the Bulldogs and the Hart Foundation, building their merch sales and provided more incentive for fans to check it out live.
So, during a PG era where, theoretically, kids and their parents should be attracted to the product and buying up T's and lunch boxes and everything else, why, oh, _why_ is WWE shitting where they eat by making their babyfaces look like utter chumps or boring as hell or just hokey or douchey? The heels get far better narratives, but their seeming dominance is pushing fans and potential fans away. Roman Reigns could be that face champion below whom the tide of great midcard, I-C and tag title feuds can lift the entire roster, but we don't get any notion of _why_ we should cheer him apart from glimpses of his personal life, which do make him more likeable but not enough to steer Creative away from "This is my yard" promos. Finn Balor, much as I love Fergal Devitt, has never really been established as a babyface apart from his willingness, one time, to back away from the Miz rather than risk seeing Maryse get hurt. Again, what we know about him away from the ring makes us like him a lot, but his in-ring characterization is still an unknown quantity.
I had hinted at a need for babyfaces to come together as a unified group with a certain common set of values and motivations that a) governs their actions in the ring and away from it in kayfabe, b) can be reinforced by fellow babyfaces during backstage segments, and c) is at minimum akin to some of the values most parents would want their children (WWE's biggest merch consumers) to emulate. Apart from throwing us fans a bone of a feel-good Wrestlemania moment once every five years because the next major PPV is likely to end in a riot otherwise, what else can the creative team do to correct a badly-listing ship like this?
|
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jul 2, 2017 19:01:24 GMT -5
I agree that there are a lot of instances where faces could be written way better (looking at you, Bayley), but I think we as a fanbase need to be more specific in what we want from our babyface characters. If we want them to show a little rugged edge and backbone, then we can't then hold them to boy scout standards of behaviour when they become the proactive party in a feud and take a swing at the heel. If we want someone as a believable underdog, then they DO actually need to lose once in a while, otherwise they just aren't underdogs. And the top babyface in the company DOES have to usually win in the end, that's why he's the top babyface. It's how wrestling has worked for decades, including the two most profitable eras in the history of the business. By all means take issue with who they pick in that role, though.
The storytelling has so little faith in it now, most of us just want our favourites to win now and win always, as that seems to be the only indication of whether they think you're any good or not.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819 
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Jul 2, 2017 19:14:26 GMT -5
That is a pretty good rant. The obsession with getting heat and making the good guys look like idiots is pretty weird. Especially since their corporate buzzword slogan is "putting smiles on faces".
Also half the time the heat is on the booking rather than heat on the actual wrestlers themselves for whatever they did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bang Bang Bart on Jul 2, 2017 21:20:05 GMT -5
I agree that there are a lot of instances where faces could be written way better (looking at you, Bayley), but I think we as a fanbase need to be more specific in what we want from our babyface characters. If we want them to show a little rugged edge and backbone, then we can't then hold them to boy scout standards of behaviour when they become the proactive party in a feud and take a swing at the heel. If we want someone as a believable underdog, then they DO actually need to lose once in a while, otherwise they just aren't underdogs. And the top babyface in the company DOES have to usually win in the end, that's why he's the top babyface. It's how wrestling has worked for decades, including the two most profitable eras in the history of the business. By all means take issue with who they pick in that role, though. The storytelling has so little faith in it now, most of us just want our favourites to win now and win always, as that seems to be the only indication of whether they think you're any good or not. WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces. |
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jul 2, 2017 21:57:46 GMT -5
They can write decent babyfaces, but they're normally portrayed as heels.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Jul 2, 2017 22:25:42 GMT -5
I agree that there are a lot of instances where faces could be written way better (looking at you, Bayley), but I think we as a fanbase need to be more specific in what we want from our babyface characters. If we want them to show a little rugged edge and backbone, then we can't then hold them to boy scout standards of behaviour when they become the proactive party in a feud and take a swing at the heel. If we want someone as a believable underdog, then they DO actually need to lose once in a while, otherwise they just aren't underdogs. And the top babyface in the company DOES have to usually win in the end, that's why he's the top babyface. It's how wrestling has worked for decades, including the two most profitable eras in the history of the business. By all means take issue with who they pick in that role, though. The storytelling has so little faith in it now, most of us just want our favourites to win now and win always, as that seems to be the only indication of whether they think you're any good or not. WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces. Which is kind of funny, since a lot of people complain about how the MCU doesn't have any good heels. A protagonist is only as good as his or her antagonist. |
|
Chiral
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 73,473
|
Post by Chiral on Jul 2, 2017 23:31:47 GMT -5
That sums it up. It's sad but it really feels like they don't care at all about audience satisfaction or longterm storytelling. It's just "how can we get this crowd to react RIGHT NOW" and their method is to make them all really sad or really angry. In my opinion this "f*** you be sad we want that shocked reaction shot" style of booking is one of the main factors to ratings dropping so hard the last few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 2, 2017 23:57:26 GMT -5
The thing that gets me whenever these topics regarding the booking come up is, it should not be this hard to look at your group of talent, find a fitting character (which a lot of them already have solid foundations for), and give them something to do. Why is that so difficult? They used to be able to do it; Val Venis, The Godfather, Edge, Christian, Mosh, Thrasher, Gangrel, all these guys had shit going on. It wasn't always great television and some of the characters sucked, but there was effort put in to try and present something to us. I can promise the formula of "good guy vs. bad guy" still works because literally everything else still does it. But WWE keeps trying to be "different" when nobody wants them to be.
Seriously, I should not be able to tell you who Beaver Cleavage's character is before I can tell you Bayley's. Or Roman Reigns. Or Seth Rollins. Or most of these other guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Germansuplex on Jul 3, 2017 0:04:26 GMT -5
WWE should look at how Marvel Studios writes their faces in the movies for an idea on how to build their own faces. Let's give Vince another 20 years to catch up. |
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jul 3, 2017 0:07:41 GMT -5
Seriously, I should not be able to tell you who Beaver Cleavage's character is before I can tell you Bayley's. Or Roman Reigns. Or Seth Rollins. Or most of these other guys. Beaver Cleavage's character was easy to define, but it wasn't an example of good writing (or else it would have lasted longer than one TV match). Just because someone's character can't be summarised as quickly as "wrestling '60s sitcom child" or any of the New Generation-era occupational gimmicks doesn't mean it's not there at all. |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 3, 2017 0:17:02 GMT -5
Seriously, I should not be able to tell you who Beaver Cleavage's character is before I can tell you Bayley's. Or Roman Reigns. Or Seth Rollins. Or most of these other guys. Beaver Cleavage's character was easy to define, but it wasn't an example of good writing (or else it would have lasted longer than one TV match). Just because someone's character can't be summarised as quickly as "wrestling '60s sitcom child" or any of the New Generation-era occupational gimmicks doesn't mean it's not there at all. True; Beaver Cleavage definitely falls under the "characters that sucked" description I mentioned. But at least it is a character. But a lot of the current talent probably couldn't even describe what their character is if asked and that's what my issue is. |
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Jul 3, 2017 2:02:49 GMT -5
Every face is a goody two shoes who cuts jokes and plays up the crowd, occasionally saying it's serious the third time they face someone after beating them twice.
Heels are all cowards who can only win by cheating.
You need to have multiple types of each.
Face - underdog, ass kicker, franchise player, guy who comes so close (but often loses), veteran with some gas in the tank, comedy.
Heels - guy who we know is good, but cheats anyway because he can, coward, monster, manipulator, serious brawler
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 3:11:23 GMT -5
Izzy is a Blissfit now? Ha, ouch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2017 4:28:55 GMT -5
Izzy is a Blissfit now? Ha, ouch. For a couple years now I've wanted Izzy to turn heel and talk about how Bayley was overrated and how (insert heel) is much better. |
|
Heartbreaker
King Koopa
Is actually Bindi Irwin
RIP Punk's media scrum, Page 54, Muffins, Biting People Bad™ (2022 - 2022)
Posts: 11,846
|
Post by Heartbreaker on Jul 3, 2017 4:38:38 GMT -5
What if Izzy likes both Alexa and Bayley? That's just insanely impossible, right?
|
|
auph10imitated
Dennis Stamp
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 4,951
|
Post by auph10imitated on Jul 3, 2017 6:00:10 GMT -5
Face - underdog, ass kicker, franchise player, guy who comes so close (but often loses), veteran with some gas in the tank, comedy. Heels - guy who we know is good, but cheats anyway because he can, coward, monster, manipulator, serious brawler By using your examples I thought I would pick out a few good examples in each category. Underdog - 1-2-3 Kid circa 1993, Ass Kicker - Ken Shamrock circa 1997 Franchise Player - Hulk Hogan circa 1987, John Cena circa 2010 Guy who comes so close (but often loses) -? Veteran with some gas in the tank - Superfly Jimmy Snuka circa 1991, The Undertaker circa 2007 Comedy - Chris Jericho circa 2000 Guy who we know is good, but cheats anyway because he can - Model Rick Martel circa 1990, Mr Perfect circa 1990 Coward - Owen Hart circa 1994, Christian circa 2004 Monster - Vader circa 1992, Brock Lesnar circa 2002 Manipulator - Jake The Snake Roberts circa 1991, Doink circa 1993 Serious brawler - Haku circa 1989, Bad News Brown circa 1989 |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,066
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 3, 2017 6:57:57 GMT -5
What if Izzy likes both Alexa and Bayley? That's just insanely impossible, right? Absolutely impossible! ONE OF US ONE OF US GOOBLE GOBBLE GOOBLE GOBBLE |
|
Wieners=$$$
Hank Scorpio
Gif Master Extraordinaire
Smokin' Bones
Posts: 6,026
|
Post by Wieners=$$$ on Jul 3, 2017 7:28:41 GMT -5
I wonder how much the Attitude Era has had impact on how WWE writes their characters today. The AE came about during desperate times, as well as a change in the social climate of the US. People wanted to cheer for the "bad guys" and they did, so much even that they became the hottest acts in both WWF (Austin) and WCW (NWO).
Why were they being cheered I feel can be summed up when you look at the Rock's career. He was as white-meat, babyface as they got, and not only was he not getting over, but he was getting death threats from the audience. It wasn't until they made him heel, and let him create a character that was more relatable and enjoyable, and also played to his strengths, that fans begun to love him, despite him being a heel.
Same happened to Austin. When Austin 3:16 happened, he was a heel, but he slowly transitioned into an anti-hero role, which was unheard of at the time, and the rest is history. Both the Rock and Austin became popular, when they were heels, and I feel like this has been WWE's model ever since, i.e. John Cena and CM Punk.
Debut a babyface, make fans hate how lame he is, turn babyface heel with a relatable/"cool" gimmick, wait to see if fans appreciate it, turn heel back to face with the same gimmick. Why they can't debut a babyface with the relatable/"cool" gimmick in the first place to see if it gets over is hard to say. Enzo and Cass had that, and they threw it away, because maybe they see more long-term value in Cass. Now WWE might work on making Enzo a sympathetic, underdog babyface with the same relatable/"cool" gimmick, but how they use him is what will make or break his career, that and whether he can work as a singles wrestler.
After Daniel Bryan left, who many consider to be the last-great babyface, there has been this huge gap the the WWE for someone who has talent and can get, organic/real sympathy that fans gravitate to. What I don't understand is why WWE is in no hurry to fill this gap? It's not like they don't have a roster of talent. Hell, both Zayn and Bayley should be playing this part. The issue is, and WWE need to realize this soon, is that there's a difference between making your babyface an underdog and making them look like a chump. People hate chumps, and they just made one of their top acts look like a chump.
My point is that the formula no longer works. What worked in the 80's, did not work in the 90's, and what worked in the 90's, has become a weird mix of both time periods in the present. The "money-paying" audience hates the good guys again, but the problem is merchandise is selling in the PG Era because the same "money-paying" audience has kids, and kids love Reigns and Cena, and that is the core demographic, so no one is turning heel and making kids cry (brah).
|
|
Nosnorb
El Dandy
Nachos and Fraggle Rock are TIMELESS.
Posts: 7,665
|
Post by Nosnorb on Jul 3, 2017 7:29:26 GMT -5
Guy who comes so close (but often loses) -? Dean Ambrose post June 2nd 2014 would be a decent fit here. But this category isn't really one that WWE should be aiming for and if a face ends up in this category, chances are Creative really f***ed up. Having a face that constantly fails when the chips are down means that the dude is going to struggle to keep heat and stay over. After all, if the end result is the dude choking at the big dance just like the last 5 or 6 times, whats the point of getting invested? |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,066
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Jul 3, 2017 8:46:54 GMT -5
After Daniel Bryan left, who many consider to be the last-great babyface, there has been this huge gap the the WWE for someone who has talent and can get, organic/real sympathy that fans gravitate to. What I don't understand is why WWE is in no hurry to fill this gap? It's not like they don't have a roster of talent. Hell, both Zayn and Bayley should be playing this part. The issue is, and WWE need to realize this soon, is that there's a difference between making your babyface an underdog and making them look like a chump. People hate chumps, and they just made one of their top acts look like a chump. Bryan really represents a shift in the fanbase and what the fanbase considered "cool", too. The fanbase has shifted more in favor of the nerdier, "fandom obsession" sort of audience, and Bryan's hippie sensibilities and total wrestling-obsession-geekdom hit on the modern wrestling fan zeitgeist, and we've seen guys like New Day follow in that wake. The other thing that seems to be really popular is the Snarky Jerk-Ass (in the vein of guys like Punk or Owens), but they tend to get booked as heels, which makes the faces look like chumps because most of them either don't have the promo chops to defend themselves against it/hit back (eg : Ryback), or aren't allowed to show it (eg : Kofi). |
|
